The Initial Survey

As part of the Constitutional Convention Central Teams multi-sectoral approach of

research and consultation, and toward the ultimate goal of facilitating the Conventions
drafting of the new Constitution, the initial survey was conducted with the objectives of (1)
generating information on student body attitudes toward existing Sanggunian systems, and
(2) assessing key decision points for the Convention involving the student body at large. In
line with these, we identified key areas of inquiry to include (a) Sanggunian performance, (b)
Sanggunian structure, (c) platforms for plebiscite, and (d) interest in ConCon activities.
Questions were generated, piloted, and finalized in collaboration with key
informants1. In general, questions were presented as closed statements in a Likert format,
requiring a response on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree) 2. Openended questions were also included to allow respondents to elaborate on their views. Once
finalized, the survey was distributed among upperclassmen Ateneans through online
platforms, including the student bodys official university email accounts and the Central
Teams social media account. Data was analyzed by examining the percentage distribution of
responses, with significance levels determined through one-sample t-test3.
The final survey results consisted of the aggregated responses of 229 students4. By
sex, female respondents represented 55.0% of the sample, while male respondents
represented 45.0%. By school, the composition of the sample was 16.6% SOH, 22.3% SOM,
29.7% SOSE, and 31.4% SOSS. Finally, by year level, the sample was comprised of 34.9%
sophomores, 36.7% juniors, and 28.4% seniors/superseniors. All data are presented at the end
of this report.

This included past and current officers of the Sanggunian, members of the previous Constitutional Convention,
the Constitution itself.
2 This precludes the possibility of a totally neutral response.
3 Inferences were drawn using 3.5 as the test value, =.05.
4 Sample size allowed inferences to be drawn with an approximate confidence interval of 6.0 with a 95% confidence
level.
1

On Sanggunian Performance
In general, respondents do not believe the Sanggunian is important to their lives as
students (M = 2.51, SD = 1.33). They believe that the Sanggunian failed to do its job well (M
= 3.31, SD = 1.13). In terms of representation, respondents believe the Sanggunian failed to
adequately represent the student body outside campus (M = 3.31, SD = 1.13), but no
conclusion can be drawn as regards representation to the school administration (M = 3.48, SD
= 1.19). Respondents believe the Sanggunian updated the student body adequately regarding
campus-wide issues (M = 3.72, SD = 1.40), but not on nation-wide issues (M = 3.17, SD =
1.35).
That said, people remain ambivalent regarding their satisfaction with the Sanggunian
(M = 3.51, SD = 1.02). People do think that the Sanggunians projects and services are
helpful (M = 4.50, SD = 1.17) and necessary (M = 4.74, SD = 1.18). The open-ended
responses, however, generally indicate that respondents are unaware of what these projects
and services are, specifically (see Table 3: A3, A14, A18). Services mentioned, however,
include DSWS and the subsidy system (A12, A13, A47).
Finally, some respondents believe the Sanggunian as an institution is redundant
(A23), ineffective (A6), or irrelevant and not addressing students real, immediate needs (A5,
A10, A38). Others, however, point out that the Sanggunian may actually be doing its job, and
its issue may in fact be one of visibility, a failure to let their presence be felt (A8, A15, A26).
On Sanggunian Structure
Respondents generally think all positions are necessary, and they should all be elected
(see Table 2; B13, B15, B24). The strength of responses tends to increase as rank of positions
increase. This suggests majority believe in the structure in status quo: all the positions, all
elected.

Some respondents are open, however, to alternatives. For instance, some respondents
are proponents of having offices instead of officers (B34). Others are in favor of appointing
certain positions instead of electing them (B32, B36, B41). Still others favor having an
entirely new system put in place (B17, B42). In the present system, however, a number of
respondents believe that a key problem may be the redundancy and lack of clarity in each
positions functions (B5, B20, B29).
Finally, there are divided views on quota, but majority believe that they are necessary
for fair elections (M = 4.01, SD = 1.66). For instance, some respondents believe that elections
ought to have a quota because the problem does not lie with the electoral system but with the
institution (B4). Others, however, believe that quota should be abolished, as those who vote
are those who are concerned, and that what is important is the seats are filled regardless (B1,
B2, B3).
On Platforms for Plebiscite
All proposed platforms are generally considered fair and convenient. Respondents
generally believe they would vote on each platform, and that others would as well. Majority
prefer the proposed platforms in this order: AISIS, campus polling stations, and INAF (see
Table 2).
Divergent views exist, however, regarding the ideal platform (C19). For instance,
while some believe AISIS would be convenient (C2, C6, C37), it might be unreliable or
unsafe as a platform (C12, C27). As for polling stations around campus, some believe they
would generate visibility for plebiscite (C7), but they would also generally be inconvenient
due to long queues (C18). On the other hand, while some believe INAF would designate a
time dedicated to voting (C54), it does not encompass the entire student body (C8, C38), and
it could be seen as coercive by some (C7, C10, C29). What many agree upon, however, is a

longer voting period (C43, C52), adequate dissemination of information (C17, C56, C70),
and no coercion to vote (C9).
On Interest in ConCon Activities
Respondents believe in the need for student government (M = 5.32, SD = 0.98), are
concerned for the present state of Atenean politics (M = 4.69, SD = 1.35), and believe
something has to be done (M = 5.24, SD = 1.06). Respondents are hopeful for the
Constitutional Convention (M = 4.96, SD = 1.20), and they want to be updated (M = 5.15, SD
= 1.03) or participate in its activities (M = 4.15, SD = 1.40).

Summary of Responses
Table 1. Raw distribution of scores.

Item
On Sanggu Performance
I was satisfied with past elections.
Sanggu is important to my student life.
Sanggu did its job well.
Sanggus projects are helpful.
Sanggus projects are necessary.
Sanggus services are helpful.
Sanggus services are necessary.
Sanggu represents me well with admin.
Sanggu represents me well outside.
Sanggu updates me on campus issues.
Sanggu updates me on nation issues.
I am satisfied with Sanggu.

1
28%
8%
6%
1%
1%
0%
0%
7%
10%
7%
11%
2%

On Sanggu Structure
Quota is necessary for fair elections.
Block Reps are necessary.
Block Reps should be elected.
EOs are necessary.
EOs should be elected.
CB Reps are necessary.
CB Reps should be elected.
The Finance Officer is necessary.
The Finance Officer should be elected.
The SecGen is necessary.
The SecGen should be elected.
The VP is necessary.
The VP should be elected.
The President is necessary.
The President should be elected.
On Platforms for Plebiscite
I would vote on AISIS.
Others would vote on AISIS.
AISIS would be convenient.
AISIS would be fair.
I would vote at campus stations.
Others would vote at campus stations.
Campus stations would be convenient.
Campus stations would be fair.
I would vote through INAF.

Disagree
2

Agree
5

28%
23%
17%
5%
5%
5%
4%
10%
16%
14%
22%
14%

21%
31%
32%
17%
14%
15%
12%
32%
31%
20%
27%
30%

15%
24%
31%
29%
26%
28%
19%
34%
25%
25%
21%
39%

6%
9%
11%
29%
31%
29%
32%
13%
14%
25%
15%
12%

3%
5%
2%
19%
23%
24%
32%
4%
4%
9%
4%
2%

10%
3%
5%
4%
3%
0%
2%
0%
4%
0%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%

14%
10%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
0%
1%

14%
7%
11%
14%
9%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
7%
8%
7%
4%
4%

17%
19%
14%
25%
22%
24%
18%
14%
18%
16%
17%
19%
12%
12%
9%

22%
27%
23%
28%
22%
33%
25%
31%
22%
31%
23%
28%
23%
25%
24%

24%
34%
41%
24%
38%
31%
45%
46%
46%
43%
45%
39%
53%
58%
61%

3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
5%
2%
16%

4%
10%
6%
3%
5%
11%
7%
3%
10%

7%
14%
4%
5%
10%
21%
10%
7%
11%

10%
23%
12%
20%
21%
28%
24%
19%
16%

19%
23%
19%
24%
27%
24%
30%
35%
15%

56%
27%
56%
45%
33%
10%
24%
34%
31%

Others would vote through INAF.

INAF would be convenient.
INAF would be fair.

11%
14%
10%

9%
9%
9%

11%
9%
10%

21%
18%
25%

22%
23%
20%

26%
27%
26%

On Interest in ConCon Activities

I am concerned for campus politics.
I am hopeful for ConCon.
I want updates on ConCon activities.
I want to be involved in ConCon.
Something has to be done.
The student body needs a government.

2%
1%
0%
4%
0%
0%

7%
2%
1%
8%
2%
2%

8%
9%
6%
21%
5%
5%

23%
21%
18%
26%
15%
12%

22%
20%
24%
19%
21%
22%

38%
47%
50%
23%
57%
59%

Table 2. Means and significance.

Item
On Sanggu Performance
I was satisfied with past elections.
Sanggu is important to my student life.
Sanggu did its job well.
Sanggus projects are helpful.
Sanggus projects are necessary.
Sanggus services are helpful.
Sanggus services are necessary.
Sanggu represents me well with admin.
Sanggu represents me well outside.
Sanggu updates me on campus issues.
Sanggu updates me on nation issues.
I am satisfied with Sanggu.

Mean

SD

Interpretation

2.51*
3.17*
3.31*
4.37*
4.52*
4.50*
4.74*
3.48
3.31*
3.72*
3.17*
3.51

1.33
1.25
1.13
1.17
1.18
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.13
1.40
1.35
1.02

No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cant say
No
Yes
No
Cant say

On Sanggu Structure
Quota is necessary for fair elections.
Block Reps are necessary.
Block Reps should be elected.
EOs are necessary.
EOs should be elected.
CB Reps are necessary.
CB Reps should be elected.
The Finance Officer is necessary.
The Finance Officer should be elected.
The SecGen is necessary.
The SecGen should be elected.
The VP is necessary.
The VP should be elected.
The President is necessary.
The President should be elected.

4.01*
4.56*
4.66*
4.40*
4.68*
4.77*
4.98*
5.13*
4.90*
5.05*
4.89*
4.84*
5.09*
5.32*
5.36*

1.66
1.12
1.20
1.35
1.38
1.12
1.20
1.01
1.34
1.07
1.34
1.27
1.25
0.97
0.99

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

On Platforms for Plebiscite

I would vote on AISIS.
Others would vote on AISIS.
AISIS would be convenient.
AISIS would be fair.
I would vote at campus stations.
Others would vote at campus stations.
Campus stations would be convenient.
Campus stations would be fair.
I would vote through INAF.
Others would vote through INAF.
INAF would be convenient.
INAF would be fair.

5.06*
4.32*
5.08*
4.93*
4.62*
3.89*
4.39*
4.84*
3.98*
4.14*
4.10*
4.16*

1.36
1.45
1.33
1.28
1.36
1.30
1.40
1.17
1.84
1.64
1.73
1.60

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

On Interest in ConCon Activities

I am concerned for campus politics.
I am hopeful for ConCon.
I want updates on ConCon activities.
I want to be involved in ConCon.
Something has to be done.
The student body needs a government.

4.69*
4.96*
5.15*
4.15*
5.24*
5.32*

1.35
1.20
1.03
1.40
1.06
0.98

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Table 3. Open-ended responses

A1
A2

A3

A4
A5

On Sanggunian Performance
Sanggunian isn't really seen to most of the student population. Their
projects are not that much known.
I think it comes intuitively to every atenean that there's a big need for
sanggu to engage students.why not apply modes of engagement done by
CSOs or grassroots-oriented organizations to aid this?
I am sure that there are services by the Sanggunian that are very
important to students, however I don't know what these services are
hence I cannot really make a solid judgement on them aside from the
fact that I am not aware of these services and that I seem to be able to
have a normal student life even without a solid Sanggunian. Although I
do still think that student representation should be an important factor in
the Ateneo.
Sanggunian does little to be relevant to me.
i feel that Sanggu isn't catering to the more IMMEDIATE needs of the
student body ie. PARKING
"I think the Sanggunian has adequately represented the student body to
admin."

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10
A11

A12

I guess if there's a score lower than 1, that's what I would have chosen
instead.
I don't even know what the Sanggu does.
The Sanggunian has a very important job, and I agree that it is essential
to student life. However, I have never actually been on the receiving
end of the benefits of Sanggu, unless it involves being informed of a
cancellation of classes due to weather conditions (though usually, my
teacher does the same job slightly faster).
I am not sure if this is because of the current perceptions of the Sanggu,
or just my lack of attentiveness to their actions. Either way, it would be
to the benefit of this org to become more visible.
The Sanggunian have been there for years, however, there arent visible
level of engagement happening inside and outside (i.e. social media) of
the campus. From my experience, SOSS Sanggu never had an intiative
to bring students closer as a school but rather functioned in a
constitutional monarchy as such the constitutional part was left out and
only the Queen of England is left to represent us. The problem is that
the Queen only do charity work and is there just for show, thats how I
see the SOSS Sanggu.
Sanggu is barely part of my school life at all :(
I really don't feel the Sanggunian's presence in my Atenean journey. It
would be better if we (Ateneo) were better represented outside the
school. I really would like the Ateneo to be part of something BIGGER
or something MORE than what it is currently.
DSWS is one of the Sanggunian things that I appreciate. Since it's been
relatively peaceful not much scandals outside failure of elections,
Sanggu seems pretty okay. It has updated on campus wide issues, one
that I remember is the one with Imelda. Then I really appreciate having

A13

A14

A15

A16

A17

A18

A19
A20
A21

A22

A23

A24

Ateneo as a Voting Registration Satellite.

Other than DSWS, I felt nothing. I also don't like the fact that my ID
number is in the form, since it feels awkward and scary to elaborate
further.
I'm not really all that knowledgable if Sanggu's projects. So i'm basing
my answers to what little I know. Maybe it would be nice to make your
projects more known to the Ateneo student body?
The Sanggunian is definitely an important part of the ADMU student
life and I cannot deny that it is behind overseeing the operations of the
various sectors of the community that are relevant to student life.
However,I just wish they were more visible in what they are doing
The Sanggunian has to foster a more competitive political arena around
the campus. If candidates are always unopposed, should we even call it
an election?
I know it's the student's initiative to know what's happening around the
university and what Sanggu does, but somehow I still can't feel it's
effect. However, I am aware of the fact that I may be lacking
knowledge about it.
My answers generally lie on 3. This is not because I disagree with how
the projects or services work but from the standpoint that not many
people know/see these efforts. An effort unseen and unknown is
wasted, and so I would rate it on the side of unhelpful/no impact.
Not really made much aware of these projects and initiatives.
I know service need not be acknowledge but since Sanggu is losing its
relevance and grip of the student body, better make all those efforts
known para alam na gumagalaw talaga kayo.
I believe that Sanggu's necessary but its role is just not visible enough
to students.
Partisans like Crusada are more active than the actual government.
I sometimes do not feel the presence of Sanggunian but I'm quite sure
they do a lot of things in the background that makes things easier for
me.
My basis is the previous years' happenings. If there's a nation-wide
issue, it's not always the Sanggunian who I saw in the forefront, they
were usually groups like AFARM movement, COA, etc.
Though COA is under Sanggunian, because of autonomy, majority of
the student body are still not aware of the units and services under it.
It seems to me that generally, Sanggunian's services are a duplication of
what organizations and other bodies provide. Also, if they think they
can be middlemen, they should banish the thought as you can approach
offices directly nowadays. Other than that, Sanggunian is fine.
Most of the lower ratings were because I didn't get a chance of observe
or make use of the services. So my opinion might not matter as much. (I
think this survey needs to have the option "No Chance to Observe").
The only times I see Sanngu doing something of me as a student is
informing me about whether we have classes or not, and I get that
information faster through my friends.

A25

A26

A27

A28
A29

A30

A31

A32

A33

A34

A35

A36
A37
A38

On a separate note I do think we need Sanngu and I believe that they

should have projects.
Presently, I have a hard time pinning down a Sanggu projec/program,
maybe i'm just ignorant or maybe there could be a bit more publicity
about what Sanggu does
I appreciate what the Sanggu has done so far but I'm sorry but you can
do more, particularly with making yourself more visible in the eyes of
the students. Ateneans are still ignorant to Sanggu things and you guys
really deserve more support and that can come from visibility.
I haven't really felt the presence of sanggu ever since I started studying
in this school. I don't know what they do. I don't know any project they
have. Sorry, but if you want to be more effective, be recognized first.
I don't know exactly what the sanggunian does and what projects it has
so it's not so much an agree or disagree answer. It's more of a I have no
opinion on this.
Projects can be better implemented.
I think the Sanggnian lacks a certain presence. That it does not engage
the students enough and it has difficulty differentiating itself from just
"being another extra-curricular." According to my former block
representative (and after he resigned no one has dared take up the
vacant position). He said the Sanggunian is a lot of work. And
personally, I don't know exactly what they work on and why they
would spend several hours meeting and working on something that I am
clueless about and am not even informed of. I would suggest that if the
Sanggunian decreased the working hours, it might make the position
more "enticing" or more bearable for the student who takes up that
responsibility.
There's not enough publicity and movement from Sanggu as far as i can
remember, and also according to my upperclassmen, there has been a
lack of participation.
I think all the functions sanggu should be performing are necessary. It's
just that the student body isn't receptive and they aren't executed well
enough.
I don't know anyone who's is running for election. That's why I don't
vote (so I won't vote for the wrong person)
I don't know any services and projects of the Sanggunian
I don't really feel the presence of Sanggu in school. I'm not entirely sure
of what else they do for the student body aside from having COA. A
number of students don't see these either and that's probably why failed
elections happen.
I don't know why I can't remember the things that Sanggu did but I
know there are. I think Sanggu should really get involved with Ateneo
and the Ateneo life of students. I think what's lacking is Sanggu's mark
on student's life. Dapat evident!
I didn't quite feel the sanggunian las year and it made me doubt it's
significance in the Loyola Schools because of the failure of elections.
majority of my answer are the assumed neutral of 3 as I do not actually
know enough to provide a response
I think the organization has just lost its relevance to the student

community. It needs to do more projects that really address what the

students need. It may have been doing projects and services but I think
that they are outdated. Times change, needs change, solutions change.

A39

A40

A41
A42
A43
A44
A45

A46

I care about the community, really.

Before, I just felt disappointed and frustrated towards the system--it
seems like everyone else, even those in position, are not really handling
the student government seriously. My perception was most people
wanted to join the Sanggunian because it will be a good resum booster.
However, now that I hold a position in the JGSOM Sanggunian, I
realized that there are many people behind the scenes that pour their
hearts out. It just so happens that they are not given the exposure or the
opportunity to speak out to their constituents. Or if ever they do speak,
only a few people care to listen. I feel that the problem lies in the
nonchalance or absence of enthusiasm from the rest of the student
population.
There are many cases where the Sanggunian has failed to uphold
student rights or advance student interests. I find alarming patterns in
Sanggunian relations with the administration, where it is, because of its
prior ineffectivity, sidelined in actual decision making processes and
only consulted at the end, right before implementation. If there are any
consultations during the processes, these are not disclosed to the student
body, which is also problematic since it is pretty much a responsibility
of the government to be transparent in its dealings and to ensure us that
student opinions are actually being reflected in consultations. Apart
from this, many government officers do not even have a proper idea of
governance, as evidence by the platforms they run on.
Most of my information I get from Guidon or Matanglawin.
Sanggu should be reallly visible. Sometimes, students are oblivious or
are not aware of sanggu's projects, services, etc. Hence, we need to
really show them what we are doing.
For last year, the Sanggunian would actively participate in outside
issues and even address our issues to the admin, teachers, and etc.
For some reason, the elections never really felt intersting to me. Perhaps
i was just lazy to go to their candidate's rallies and stuff
I feel that Sanggu has a lot of projects that benefit all the students but I
have no idea what these are since I'm not in the know.
i feel like sanggu feels like just another org. its authority (?) is not felt,
and so even though it might produce infographics and announcements
and surveys like this one, they all get buried with all the other org
promos on people's feed. people just aren't... invested in it?
I hate to say it but I was Sanggu before and I didn't really feel its
relevance except for during typhoons. I was a block rep for two years
but nothing really happened.

A47

A48

One Sanggu project I liked was the subsidy system, but I think we pay
for that naman in our tuition using the activities fee so I don't know
whether Sanggu has the right to deserve the credit for that.
The only real complaint i ve heard from students so far is the failure of
elections. I want to kniw if this has been a problem in past elections.

A49

B1

B2

Either I didn't really got educated on what Sanggu does/is, or Sanggu

has no impact to me yet.
On Sanggunian Structure
I think the Sanggunian is doing a good job because our lives run
smoothly. We're not very conscious of your efforts, but we know that
they are why out lives are less of a hassle than they could be.
Don't bother with a quota. The ones who vote are the ones who care
anyway. So just get the officers from the votes you have for their sake.
OA kasi ng quota. Wag na yun! Sanggu is for the students who care. Di
dapat damay yung mga studyante na walang paki dun sa may paki. Just
have officers pls. If may nag object pa sa mga hindi nagboto we can say
na "DID U EVEN CARE BITCH WAG KA NGA"
Just do it.
My personal stance on the quota system is that if it is not consistently
met, then I think it would be better to abolish it outright and determine
the elected officials based on the number of actual voles tallied.

B3

B4

B5

B6

In the end, choosing not to vote is a conscious decision on the part of

the students that didn't vote, and so based on their decision to not vote
they forfeit any right whatsoever to complain about any sort of "unfair"
election. To me, it does not seem right to deprive the Sanggunian of
certain officials due to these students that choose not to vote of their
own free will.
The only time in which a quota system should strictly apply is if only a
single candidate is running for a given position.
Of course, Sanggu cannot be satisfactory if it is failing as a unit. But
removing the quota is not the answer to the problem of a failing
Sanggunian. It is the problem of the institution and not the electoral
system that fills up the seats of the institution.
General comment: I think the nomenclature of your positions per se
must be subject to change. When one hears for instance "Executive
Officer", the function of this role is not immediately clear. The same
holds for "Central Board officer" etc. In other words, there are many
steps an average Atenean has to jump through in order to vote, such as
navigating through the jargon of sangguspeak -- when ideally, the most
imperative step should be educating ourselves on the students'
platforms and re-assessing if what they want are practicable.
That being said, I want to give context to where I'm coming from. I
came from UP, the school stereotyped to be the most politically active.
And indeed, student elections there are as grand as recweek here. I
think the reason why is because the names of their positions are easily
accessible. When we vote for someone for a position, we know what
we're doing/getting ourselves into. Whereas here, I admit that the jargon
is an impediment.
Some positions need to be given instead, particularly if they're the kind
that everyone has to interact with

B7

B8
B9
B10

B11
B12

B13

B14

B15
B16
B17

B18

B19

B20

B21
B22

Honestly, it would be good for people to vote for their choices. The
problem, however, lies in convincing people to vote.
Why hold an election if the officers will just be appointed? Thus
bringing us to a patronage system wherein 1. Only those whom are
known by the appointment body may habe the chance to be appointed.
2. A misrepresentation of vote would be a prevailing issue
Not sure of definition/purpose of others
I actually do not know who are the executive officers and how they are
elected. The same goes for the Sec Gen. I'm okay with the Pres and
VIce press. I'm neutral for Block representatives especially during first
year since we don't know any one yet. Though it's fine to have a voting.
Explore an application process for the positions I did not "Strongly
Agree" on in regards with election. However, the student population
should be aware of the applicants.
Position-wise they seem relevant, but the problem is how relevant it is
to the student body as a whole
Generally, I don't have any issues with the structure of the Sanggunian.
Regarding the elections, I don't think past failure of elections is a
justifiable reason to forfeit elections. The Sanggunian as catering to the
student body needs to respect the right of the student body for a fair
vote. Just because the student body is not executing their rights doesn't
mean their rights should be revoked.
I think for the Block/Course Rep decision should be unanimous or 2/3
rule.
The CB and EO could follow the First Past the Post. An alternative
referendum could be used for the Top 4 if 3 or more candidates decided
to run.
I believe in democracy. Hence, everyone should be elected and not just
appointed.
Not a lot of people know the distinction of the EO and CB rep. And
Sanggu is not on high ground right now so having too much positions
might not be necessary
Perhaps moving to a parliamentary system with mixed member
proportional representation would be better.
Elections have been the "standard" for these matters (not that I'm not
open to other options), and I can at least be sure of my opinion that a
Finance Officer and a Secretary-General (or at least, of the same job
description) are necessary for any institution to work. For the rest, I
wouldn't mind changes.
I think some positions should be decided among the elected officers
themselves.
Majority of the students don't identify the difference between CB and
EO.
Block reps from Junior-Seniors are not relevant anymore. Course reps
will do for Juniors-Seniors.
I'm not too certain if Executive Officers are still necessary. Why not
just have the course/block reps report directly to the CB?
Ok, I dont know the jobs of those positions except the block and course
representatives.

B23
B24

B25

B26

B27

B28

B29

B30
B31
B32
B33
B34

I think a lot of these positions are important but it's hard to elect people
you hardly know, except for the Block Reps (since these are
blockmates)
If we choose to follow democracy then elections are necessary
I honestly dont know the candidates running. I dont know what they did
in the past and I dont have time to read their platforms to know who is
worthy. Im only wasting my time doing so since i dont see any changes.
I know sanggu officers are working hard but I dont know what theyre
doing. They seem very private... so i think its best if the officers elect
the best people within themselves
Blocks are usually close with each other and they know who can
probably "manage" the block well so pwedeng i-appoint na lang nila.
Besides, USUALLY, one per block lang yung tumatakbo for
block/course rep so sila rin nananalo. For the other positions naman,
most of the Atenean body doesn't know the people who run so dapat
talaga may election
As long as people have clear job descriptions to follow and are
dedicated, things should be ok
I'm sorry, I don't actually know what the Secretary-General of the
Sanggu does exactly... And elections are helpful, but even getting this
memo alone proved to be difficult. On top of that I think the only ones
who actually make regular students notice the Sanggu are the batch
representatives as they post all the macro announcements in our FB
page. It's almost as if Sanggu's presence is in the digital space- and in a
corner where most people don't know what's going on.
The Sanggunian should inform the student body about what exactly are
the specific roles of each member of the student council. I think a lot of
people don't see their relevance because the idea and role of such
representatives are possibly unknown to them.
It's just that for me no question they are necessary!!! Without them,
things will get chaotic.
Maybe elected within the block?
Former sanggu should just choose the next generation of officers pag di
umabot sa quota. HAYZ having an officer in the position that has the
passion to serve is better that having NO ONE just cus ang lazy bumoto
ng iba POTA
as earlier, 3's for those I do not have sufficient info about
The positions of the SecGen and the F.O. require technical, not political
expertise. As such, it would benefit the Sanggunian if Finance and
Secretariat were departments, rather than elected offices
EO can just be decided between BRs/CRs

B35

Appoint FO and SecGen.

B36

Split VP to Internals VP and Externals VP

i think that the Sec-Gen and the EO should not be elected. They must be
appointed. I thought of having the CB appointed too but if it were, wala
na yung "representation" part niya. The CB needs to be elected. Same
goes for block reps.
We need more blockreps who can really speak to their blockmates and

B37

ask them what they need. Most freshies think that the position is similar
to being a president--one who is elected only to remind and reprimand
others. They fail to realize that they are the bridges to the Central
Board. I don't know if they are shy or just intimidated, but their voices
should really be heard!

B38

B39

B40

B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47

C1

C2
C3
C4
C5

Most, if not, all positions play an important role in the Sanggunian.

However, considering that we are in a university setting, I don't think a
mere election of officers is enough. Aside from Miting de Avance, there
is no way to guarantee that our growing population will get to know a
candidate.
I think the higher positions should be elected by block/course
representatives to ensure success of an elected President/VP/SecGen
Representative offices are needed inasmuch as there is a need for
liaisons with the departments in terms of affairs that have an effect on
students (curricular changes, laboratories, internship programs, student
exchange opportunities, etc.) as well as representation in administrative
offices, such as the ADAA, OSS, etc. Secretary-generals, however, are
administrative office; I think they should be appointed by a body
instead of being elected at large.
I think the President should appoint.
No president, perhaps a British style parliament.
I support the idea that all positions should be filled through elections.
what does the eo even do?? and what does the block rep do aside from
disseminate info?
I was a block rep for two years and I hope they'll be given more clearly
defined tasks aside from being the text brigade.
During first sem, people don't know their coursemates yet enough to
vote. Though i'm fine with elections.
Same comment as the previous comment. And my numbers are directly
influenced by my indecision/lack of knowledge of Sanggu.
On Platforms for Plebiscite
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by holding it via the INAF
program. I take it that you mean our OSCI facilitators will lead it? Or it
would consume some time of the INAF activities we have?
Whichever the case, just a note: Not all students (especially transferees)
take the NSTP, so that might detract from targetting sophomores.
It's an interesting idea though -- subsuming it under INAF. After all
political formation is also "formation".
I think AISIS would be the best option; I myself check AISIS (and my
OBF email) regularly and think that polling stations are quite a hassle.
As long as confidentiality would be maintained and there's a very
organized system, I'd prefer AISIS.
i hate the inaf program, and many others hate its incompetency as well
INAF programs seems nice, however, its a force vote. Its not okay to do
that.
1.) Or online :D
2.) Yeah!

C6

C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

C12

C13

C14

C15
C16

C17

3.) That isn't the place for this.

4.) Probably, since it's there and people may talk about it what it's for.
Though, I think not really. I think it would attract teachers and staff
more.
5.) I thought of Teacher Evals.
6.) If they require it, probably they will.Though I still think it doesn't fit
INAF
7. 8. 9.) Totally.
10.) I guess.
11.) Definitely
12.) ...
AISIS would be extremely convenient but it will be hard to assure that
everyone will do it. Personally, I think it's the best suggestion. The
INAF program would also be a good idea but people already look at
their NSTPs, JEEPs, etc. as a "hassle" and might affect the "image" of
the plebiscite negatively.
Unless you are forcing people to participate, don't put it in the INAF.
Put in AISIS for convenience and ease of access and put it in the
campus for visibility.
As a 5th year, I don't have any INAF program as part of my schedule
anymore.
I think voting for the plebiscite should be on the student's discretion.
Voting through the INAF program is an effective way if we really want
to reach the quota. However, it may look like forcing the students to
vote even if they want to.
People who don't care won't be reached through the polling stations. If
ever they do vote, shotgun lang yan.
re fairness:
-Polling station is traditional but still prone to tampering
-AISIS is prone to hacking and if hold orders are issued, may become a
hassle
-INAF feels like a requirement so I don't think it's fair to "force"
students to vote
AISIS makes voting easier.
Less queues.
I don't like the idea of voting through AISIS as it would be too
accessible (?) or too "open." If Ateneans were concerned or at least try
to be concerned, they wouldn't mind a little walk to Gonzaga or to give
time off of "homeroom"/"public service" for the campus/the
Sanggunian.
I prefer online mechanisms such as AISIS but am not sure as to the
other students.
Nakakatamad kasi minsan. It's easier doing things like this online
I think mag-wowork yung sa AISIS if super good nung promotions(As
in ipakita or ipamukha sa mga Ateneans na there will be a change kasi
honestly, pangit yung image ng Sanggu and Comelec ngayon. With
that, and yung convenience na nasa AISIS sya, malaki yung probability
na bumoto sila). Most of the negative feedback sa election ay glitch or
kulang na tao sa polling stations so mas maganda siguro kung AISIS or
INAF. (I might be wrong) Yung sa INAF naman, ano 'yon? Required or

C18

C19

C20

C21

C22

C23

C24
C25
C26
C27

C28
C29

something? Hahaha
Once people see the line in for the polling stations, they think "hassle"
and then leave.
Well, PROs and CONs: if the plebiscite were accessible via AISIS,
INAF, and on campus, that would make it very accessible. However,
considering the nature of toipic being the plebiscite, consider that...
1) AISIS accounts are HACKABLE and if someone wants to win
enough votes, they can easily pay a hacker or a group of them to
quickly breach and mess up the AISIS system for the voting (of course
in complete covert means).
2) If it is through INAF, then there is immediate crowd bias where
barkada, and the like may shout random influential things like: "ALL
ABSTAIN!" and similar sentiments. Not too mention that the INAF
program is not necessarily the most well-loved course that all students
have good association with. Thus tying the plebiscite with the INAF
could present the plebescite as "another mandatory thing" which they
take very seriously.
3) On campus polling stations might help, but unless people are
informed BEFORE HAND, they won't really know what they are
voting for or why they should even vote in the plebescite (when we'd all
know that election season would still be at the end of the school year).
Use aisis to get more voters
I still prefer that we have polling stations around campus during Sanggu
election season for the sake of convenience (there are a lot anyway so it
is the responsibility of the students to go to these stations). Holding a
plebiscite in AISIS is problematic unless all students are informed and
strongly motivated by Ateneo to actually access their accounts for this.
But the INAF program could work so that almost everyone is present
for such voting activity. The challenge here is to CONVINCE the
students to vote.
I'm not particularly sure of what you mean by "fair if ..." What exactly
could make it unfair?
Online voting is the least reliable of all the options. The number and
location of poll stations on campus is not a problem, a lot of students
just don't know Sanggu and what they do so they don't have a drive to
vote.
The act of voting should be required but it's up to the person if he's not
gonna vote on a certain position.
Just do it.
I think AISIS would be the least effective platform because most
students rarely access the site before or after enlistment.
I feel that the easiest way would be to make the plebiscite voting
required in an INAF program, but that would cause a lot of flak from
the student bodyplus it would reflect badly on the Con-Con team.
One of my major issues is the inconvenience of which I have to go
through for voting, having it within arm's reach will definitely get me to
vote.
Holding plebiscite via INAF might coerce students into voting even if
they don't want to. Is there a way to make this voluntary still?

C30
C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41

C42

C43
C44
C45

using the INAF program seems forced.

I would vote anywhere. I don't think that the problem of sanggu is the
voting system. I think the problem is its relevance.
I feel like more poll stations should be prepared for the plebiscite. Also,
the Comelec should make sure that the computers are functioning! We
are paying so much money, but we can't have a proper election system.
Most students who want to vote feel discourage to do so because of the
inconsistencies in the voting process.
I do think that the plebiscite should be required in whatever form it
would be held.
In focus:
Pollbooths - they are a good idea however make sure that it would be
fast and connection is stable.
I think the AISIS and INAF option raise unnecessary complications in
ensuring the integrity of the vote as well as equal access to the polls
I think the INAF program would "require" students yo participate.
Somehow it is both good and bad. Good in a way that we will be able to
get the entire population to vote, but it's a bad practice. As early as now,
we should be able to have that initiative to go to the voting/polling
station and make an effort to have our voices heard even though it's just
one vote. This is how it goes in the real world politics/government and I
think it should be practiced. No to AISIS. Others can just influence
their friends or even use their accounts since they wouldn't care so
much. Better that people get influenced but it is still them who made the
decision (if polling stations or INAF)
I think its a good idea for elections and the plebiscite to be required for
every student on campus. That way, everyone, regardless of their
choice, will have to give a say in the matter.
I think the AISIS idea is good since it's less hassle for students so it'll be
easier to make everyone vote.
as a supersenior i no longer belong to any inaf program lol so i just feel
kinda weird about that
people skip nstp reqs as much as possible so it def wont work
Yes but it still doesn't eliminate laziness.
Won't people have to hear the plebicite thhough to vote on changes?
It really is difficult to trust on Sanggu because I don't know what they
do. Either I'm just lazy in knowing or I just really don't see information
on them. Another trust issue is because of a previous case of missing
funds I believe (something to do with the treasurer something in
sanggu).
Since there are no comments on the next page, I would like to be
interested on how ConCon will do and will impact the current and the
future Sanggu. Heck, what is even wrong to begin with?
Aisis and polling stations, voting should be done with the adequate
amount of time.
give everyone like, 1 week to go in and vote on their own time
I suggest that all the candidates have a common area or (at least) a
single opportunity to present themselves and their platform to the

C46
C47
C48
C49
C50
C51

students (a facebook page with common "promos", for example; aside

from their own campaign strategies). Since some candidates are more
exposed, or popular to the students compared to others, or have better
resources. Personally, during elections, I am still unfamiliar with
majority of the candidates.
If stations, 5 mins or less. If NSTP, 1 hr or less. If AISIS, 5 mins or
less.
Facebook? Or some fancier facebook that everyone uses :D AISIS isn't
bad
I think one week should be enough
Aisis, or kung wala talaga a set up similar to Guidance Testing.z
A convenient online medium wherein anyone can access it anytime
during this certain time frame of elections
computerized, week-long, exciting (in a political way, if that makes any
sense; it engages with the sectors involved, motivates students to fight
for student representation, appealing to voters)
I think it should last until 6pm for the people who have classes all day

C52
C53
C54
C55

It might be nice to have it the same way as elections

Open multiple avenues for voting.
During INAF is a good idea. The thing that stops most people is that it's
a hassle I think. So if you give them a specific time and place to vote, it
will get done
It can be more convenient if it we will be held online because not all the
students might choose to vote on campus.
I suggest creating an "entertaining" info-mercial on the plebiscite and
what's in it for the student body. Tell them WHY they need to vote and
HOW they can do it. Present it during the INAF program to make sure
all the students receive it and post it on their FB batch groups for quick
reference.

C56
Ideally, it would have to be concise BUT NOT sacrificing content.
Then polling booths on a scheduled week ANNOUNCED IN THE
VIDEO can be set up to facilitate the actual plebiscite.

C57
C58
C59
C60

C61

C62

SET UP THE VOTERS TO VOTE THEN HOLD THE PLEBISCITE.

Aisis
Do it over a week or maybe even two.
INAF
HOLD ORDER SILA PAG DI NAG SIGN. POTA. Love u Sanggu.
Not during INAFs. Students hate the program as it is, no need for them
to transfer that dislike to Sanggunian.
Mix of online and on-campus might be necessary to reach the widest
possible audience.
Meal times are inadvisable. Especially during exams and hellweeks.
You can also blast the pleb via email, same as this survey. Polling
station at the dorms. Reach out to organizations, athletes.

C63

C64
C65
C66
C67
C68
C69
C70
C71
C72
C73

C74
C75
C76
C77
C78
C79

If in case the plebiscite weren't via the INAF program, I strongly

suggest to at least elaborate the matter during the INAF program to urge
students into participating. While doing it on AISIS may be convenient,
it comes with a risk that not everyone would be able to participate since
not everyone regularly checks their aisis account. Having polling
stations + the INAF programs would probably be the best way to
inform and make students vote.
Month-long, period for the plebiscite would be ideal; this platform is
good enough, though.
I think the best way to hold the plebiscite would be to coordinate with
the INAF Program and to devote one entire INAF session (or part of
one INAF session) to voting.
Surveys such as this one; tie up with different departments to have
plebiscites done in class
None. I think that comelec is able to do its job properly.
Longer time period to vote.
Hold on a particular day, where classes are suspended to make way for
voting.
Sanggu must do everything to disseminate information regarding the
plebiscite first.
Just make sure that ALL of the student body is informed. One of the
reasons past elections have failed is due to the lack of knowledge the
student body has over these matters.
Please make it online. Kahit hindi aisis.
i know i said stuff about social media in the first page but let's face it
everyone is on it. so idk maybe some tinyurl with a code so only
ateneans can access it. but medj delikado yan so... polling stations
nalang ^_^
Make the timeframe two weeks.
Have voting at the info commons, before gaining access to the
computer itself.
I don't know if Sanggu could "require" people to vote. But I'm strongly
against incentives for voting.
Maybe we should include livestreams than have an online voting after?
Before the end of the academic year!
Polling station would be nice, but I think having it through AISIS
would be more effective. Just make sure to alert the people (posters
around campus, through social media, school publications, etc.) about
it.
Onsite campuses are the best for security in my opinion.